Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T23:59:48.558Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of the reactions of pure lines selected from Turkish bread wheat landraces against bunt disease (Tilletia foetida) with the GGE-biplot method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2018

Mevlüt Akçura  and
Kadir Akan Open the ORCID record for Kadir Akan [Opens in a new window]
Mevlüt Akçura
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Field Crops, University of Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart, Çanakkale, Turkey
Kadir Akan*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Plant Protection Kırşehir, University of Ahi Evran, Kırşehir, Turkey
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: kadir.akan@ahievran.edu.tr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present research was conducted to determine the reactions of 200 pure lines selected from bread wheat landraces collected from 18 provinces and seven regions of Turkey against bunt disease (Tilletia foetida) under field conditions for 3 years. Bunt disease reactions of pure lines were assessed based on the infected spike/total spike ratio. For visually assessed materials, the GGE-biplot method, where G = genotype effect and GE = genotype-by-environment effect, was used to group the reactions against bunt disease. Fifty-nine pure lines showed high resistance (with infection rates ranging from 0.1 to 10%); 24 in the moderate resistance (with infection rates ranging from 10.1 to 25%); 75 in the moderate susceptibility (with infection rates ranging from 25.1 to 45%); 38 in the susceptibility (with infection rates ranging from 45.1 to 70%) and finally four in the highly susceptibility (with infection rates of >70.1%). PC1 and PC2 of the GGE-biplot graph created over the years explained 76.49% of the total variation. The GGE-biplot graph provided efficient identification of resistant genotypes. The lowest PC1 values and PC2 values close to 0.0 explained the resistance of pure line to bunt disease best. The resistance of pure lines to bunt disease over the biplot decreased from the first section through the last section. Based on the results of present study, 19 pure lines (located within the first circle of the biplot graph) were selected for resistance breeding programmes against the diseases.

Keywords

bunt (Tilletia foetida)GGE-biplotlandracespure lineTurkey
Type
Research Article
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , August 2018 , pp. 325 - 333
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acorsi, C, Guedes, T, Coan, M, Pinto, R, Scapim, C, Pacheco, C and Casela, C (2017) Applying the generalized additive main effects and multiplicative interaction model to analysis of maize genotypes resistant to grey leaf spot. Journal of Agricultural Science 155: 939–953.Google Scholar
Akan, K, Mert, Z, Çetin, L, Albostan, S, Düşünceli, F and Yazar, S (2005). Reaction of some registered wheat cultivars to common bunt caused by (Tilletia foetida (Wallr.) and Tilletia caries (D.C.) Tul.) in Ankara Conditions. Türkiye II. Seed Congress. 09–11 November 2005 Adana , Turkey pp: 316–322 (in Turkish).Google Scholar
Akcura, M (2006) Characterization of Turkish winter bread wheat landraces genetic resource. PhD. Thesis. Selcuk University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, p 226. (in Turkish).Google Scholar
Akcura, M, Kokten, K, Gocmen Akcacik, A and Aydogan, S (2016) Pattern analysis of Turkish bread wheat landraces and cultivars for grain and flour quality. Turkish Journal of Field Crops 21: 120–130.Google Scholar
Bonman, JM, Bockelman, HE, Goates, BJ, Obert, DE, Mcguire, PE, Qualset, CO and Hijmans, RJ (2006) Geographic distribution of common and dwarf bunt resistance in landraces of Triticum aestivum subsp. aestivum. Crop Science 46: 1622–1629.Google Scholar
Dumalasova, V and Bartos, P (2007) Reaction of winter wheat cultivars to common bunt Tilletia tritici (Bjerk.) Wint. and T. laevis Kühn. Plant Protection Science 43: 138–141.Google Scholar
Dumalasova, V and Bartos, P (2010) Reaction of wheat, alternative wheat and triticale cultivars to common bunt. Czech Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 46: 14–20.Google Scholar
Dumalasova, V, Leiova-Svobodova, L and Bartos, P (2014) Common bunt resistance of Czech and European winter wheat cultivars and breeder lines. Czech Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 50: 201–207.Google Scholar
Egesi, CN, Onyeka, TJ and Asiedu, R (2009) Environmental stability of resistance to anthracnose and virus diseases of water yam (Dioscorea alata). African Journal of Agricultural Research 4: 113–118.Google Scholar
Gabriel, KR (1971) The biplot graphic display of matrices with application to principal component analysis. Biometrika 58: 453–467.Google Scholar
Goates, BJ (1996) Common bunt and dwarf bunt. In: Wilcoxson, RD and Saari, EE (eds) Bunt and Smut Diseases of Wheat: Concepts and Methods of Disease Management. Mexico City, Mexico, CIMMYT, pp. 12–25.Google Scholar
Iren, S, Maden, S and Coskun, H (1982) Bunts (Tilletia spp.) of wheat in Turkey in 1980, comparison of their ratios by the earlier records and effectiveness of chemical seed treatment on disease incidence. Plant Protection Bulletin 22: 61–71 (in Turkish).Google Scholar
Joshi, AK, Ortiz-Ferrara, G, Crossa, J, Singh, G, Alvarado, G, Bhatta, MR, Bhatta, E, Duveiller, RC, Sharma, DB, Pandit, AB, Siddique, SY, Das, R, Sharma, N and Chand, R (2007) Associations of environments in South Asia based on spot blotch disease of wheat caused by Cochliobolus sativus. Crop Science 47: 1071–1081.Google Scholar
Kadariya, M, Glover, KD, Mergoum, M and Osborne, LE (2008) Biplot analysis of agronomic and Fusarium head blight resistance traits in spring wheat. Journal of Crop Improvement 22: 147–170.Google Scholar
Kempton, RA (1984) The use of biplots in interpreting variety by environment interactions. Journal of Agricultural Science 103: 123–135.Google Scholar
Kumar, S, Baranwal, DK, Kumar, A, Gupta, RN and Kumar, A (2017) G × E interaction analysis for yield and major diseases in chickpea under rice fallow land of Bihar. Environment and Ecology 35: 1238–1243.Google Scholar
Lillemo, M, Singh, RP and Ginkel, MV (2010) Identification of stable resistance to powdery mildew in wheat based on parametric and non-parametric methods. Crop Science 50: 478–485.Google Scholar
Mamluk, OF, Cetin, L, Braun, HJ, Bolat, N, Bertschinger, L, Makkouk, KM, Yildirim, AF, Sari, EE, Zencirci, N, Albustan, S, Cali, S, Beniwal, SPS and Dusunceli, F (1997) Current status of wheat and barley diseases in the Central Anatolian Plateau of Turkey. Phytopathologia Mediterranean 36: 167–181.Google Scholar
Mamluk, OF and Nachit, MM (1994) Sources of resistance to common bunt (Tilletia foetida and T. caries) in durum wheat. Journal of Phytopathology 142: 122–130.Google Scholar
Pande, S, Sharma, M, Gaur, PM, Basandrai, AK, Kaur, L, Hooda, KS, Basandrai, D, Kiran, T, Babu, S, Jain, K and Rathore, A (2013) Biplot analysis of genotype × environment interactions and identification of stable sources of resistance to Ascochyta blight in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Australian Plant Pathology 42: 561–571.Google Scholar
Parihar, AK, Basandrai, AK, Sirari, A, Dinakaran, D, Singh, D, Kannan, K, Kushawaha, PS, Adinarayan, M, Akram, M, Latha, TKS, Paranidharan, V and Gupta, S (2017) Assessment of mungbean genotypes for durable resistance to yellow mosaic disease: genotype × environment interactions. Plant Breeding 136: 94–100.Google Scholar
Rubiales, D, Avila, CM, Sillero, JC, Hybl, M, Narits, L, Sass, O and Flores, F (2012) Identification and multi-environment validation of resistance to Ascochyta fabae in faba bean (Vicia faba). Field Crops Research 126: 165–170.Google Scholar
Sandhu, PS, Brar, KS, Chauhan, JS, Meena, PD, Awasthi, RP, Rathi, AS, Kumar, A, Gupta, JC, Kolte, SJ and Manhas, SS (2015) Host–pathogen interactions of brassica genotypes for white rust (Albugo candida) disease severity under aided epiphytotic conditions in India. Phytoparasitica 43: 197–207.Google Scholar
Sharma, M, Ghosh, R, Telangre, R, Rathore, A, Saifulla, M, Mahalinga, DM and Jain, YK (2016) Environmental influences on pigeonpea-Fusarium udum interactions and stability of genotypes to Fusarium wilt. Frontiers in Plant Science 7: 1–10.Google Scholar
Villegas-Fernández, AM, Sillero, JC, Emeran, AA, Winkler, J, Raffiot, B, Tay, J, Flores, F and Rubiales, D (2009). Identification and multi-environment validation of resistance to Botrytis fabae in Vicia faba. Field Crops Research 114: 84–90.Google Scholar
Yan, W (2014) Crop Variety Trials: Data Management and Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 349.Google Scholar
Yan, W and Falk, DE (2002) Biplot analysis of host-by-pathogen data. Plant Disease 86: 1396–1401.Google Scholar
Yan, W and Hunt, LA (2001) Interpretation of genotype environment interaction for winter wheat yield in Ontario. Crop Science 41: 19–25.Google Scholar
Yan, W, Hunt, LA, Sheng, Q and Szlavnics, Z (2000) Cultivar evaluation and mega-environment investigation based on the GGE biplot. Crop Science 40: 597–605.Google Scholar
Zobel, RW, Wright, MJ and Gauch, HG (1988) Statistical analysis of a yield trial. Agronomy Journal 80: 388–393.Google Scholar